Jacinto v.

CA

G.R. No. 80043.

June 6, 1991.|

By Bryce King

Romeo G. Carlos for petitioner.

Jorge, Perez & Associates for private respondents.

Doctrine

Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court "when evidence is presented by one party, with the express or

implied consent of the adverse party, as to issues not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered

validly as regards those issues, which shall be considered as if they have been raised in the pleadings. There

is implied consent to the evidence thus presented when the adverse party fails to object thereto."

Facts

This is an appeal by certiorari to partially set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No.

08153 promulgated on 19 August 1987, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Branch 11, in Civil Case No. 133164 entitled "Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Inland Industries Inc.

and Roberto Jacinto," the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants to pay, jointly and

severally, the plaintiff, the principal obligation of P382,015.80 (Annex J-1 to J-3 of

Stipulation), with interest charges thereon at the rate of 16% per annum from January 1,

1979 up to the time the said amount is fully paid, plus the sum of P20,000.00 as

attorney's fees. Said defendants are further ordered to pay in solidum the costs of this

suit.”

Petitioner, faults Court of Appeals for piercing the fiction of corporate identity of the defendant corporation

Inland Industries, Inc. even if there is no allegation in the complaint regarding the same, nor is there anything

in the prayer demanding the piercing of the corporate veil of the corporation Inland Industries, Inc.

Issue

W/O petitioner can faults the courts for piercing the veil of corporate fiction despite the absence of any

allegation in the complaint questioning the separate identity and existence of Inland Industries, Inc. NO

Ruling|||

While on the face of the complaint there is no specific allegation that the corporation is a mere alter ego of

petitioner, subsequent developments, from the stipulation of facts up to the presentation of evidence and
the examination of witnesses, unequivocably show that respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

sought to prove that petitioner and the corporation are one or that he is the corporation.

No serious objection was heard from petitioner. Pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court "when

evidence is presented by one party, with the express or implied consent of the adverse party, as to issues

not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered validly as regards those issues, which shall be

considered as if they have been raised in the pleadings. There is implied consent to the evidence thus

presented when the adverse party fails to object thereto."|||